About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
this number at all. leading the band is the legendary ceo of general electric, jack welch. jack, you made a lot of news today. here's the tweet you put out this morning. unbelievable jobs numbers. these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate, so change numbers. and i'm just wondering, i understand the way it works the president gets a heads up on the unemployment number 4:00 the day before and has to keep it to himself. you're saying in your tweet this morning that the news went the other way, the people working for the president somehow got the bureau of labor statistics and played with the numbers so it's down below 8 today. how does it work from your perspective? what happened here? >> all i can talk about are some of the numbers. we had 600,000 government jobs added in the last two months. we had 873,000 jobs by a household survey, which is a total estimate, from 50,000 phone calls. of those 600,000 were temporary workers. chris, these numbers are all a series of assumptions. tons of assumptions. and it just seems somewhat coincidental that the month before the election the numbe
of general electric, jack welch, who joins us right now. jack, you made a lot of news today. here is the tweet you put out this morning. unbelievable jobs numbers. these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate so change numbers. and i'm just wondering, i understand the way it works is the president gets a heads-up on the unemployment number 4:00 the day before and has to keep it to himself. you're saying in your tweet this morning that the news went the other way, that the people working for the president somehow got the bls, the bureau of labor statistics, and played with the numbers so it would come down below 8% today. how does it work from your perspective? what happened here? >> well, chris, all i can talk about are some of the numbers. we had 600,000 government jobs added in the last two months. we had 873,000 jobs by a household survey, which is a total estimate from 50,000 phone calls. of those 600,000 were temporary workers. chris, these numbers are all a series of assumptions, tons of assumptions, and it just seems somewhat coincidental that the month before the elec
to have. tweeting doesn't seem like something i'd hear from jack welch. unbelievable job numbers, fair enough. these chicago guys will do anything to change the numbers. what evidence do you have to the chicago guys got to the bureau of labor statistics and jimmied these numbers by 0.3%. >> i have no evidence. i just raised the question. >> you didn't raise the question. you are asserting in your tweet that you put out at 8:35 this morning, five minutes after the report came out that did you talk to the economists or anyone who understand how the numbers were put together before you accused the chicago guys of changing the numbers? >> chris, i know these numbers are gathered by a series of wild assumptions, maybe they weren't right at 8.5. maybe they weren't right at 8.4. but it seems coincidental that one month before the election, they would end up at 7.8. the president today is on the stump. the president, all he's talked about is 7.8. he didn't mention 600,000 jobs added in the government sector. >> see -- it's not your attitude about obama people care about, it's your analysis. yo
in conservative corners were arguing about the actual numbers. jack welch had a tweet about unbelievable jobs numbers, the chicago guys will do anything, can't debate because they change the numbers. he was on "hardball" with chris matthews and this is how he explained what's behind this analysis. >> i've reviewed 14 businesses this week from restaurants to rental cars, to widgets. i have seen everybody with a, a third quarter equal to or weaker than the first quarter. in order to get 873,000 new jobs, you would have to have a gdp going at 4% to 5%. the second quarter was downgraded from 1.7 to 1.3. the third quarter is not going to be very strong. it just defies the imagination to have a surge larger than -- any surge since 1983, a month before the election. i leave it to you to do all the analysis. >> you know -- >> one of the most important ceos of america, formerly of general electric does this ring true to you, speaker? >> actually since it's a survey, is this outside the statistical bounds of their survey, which is plausible, but irrelevant. what's interesting is you have a president, w
some were arguing about the actual numbers. jack welch made a lot of headlines with a tweet that said, unbelievable jobs numbers. these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate so they change the numbers without any substantiation. he was on "hardball" with chris matthews and this is how he explained it. >> i've reviewed 14 businesses this week. from restaurants to widgets. i have seen everybody with a third quarter equal to or weaker than the first quarter. in order to get 873,000 new jobs, you would have to have a g.d.p. going at 4% to 5%. the second quarter was downgraded from 1.7% to 1.3%. the third quarter is not going to be very strong. it just defies the imagination to have a surge larger than any surge since 1983 a month before the election. i leave it to you to do all the analysis. >> one of the most important ceos in america. formerly of general electric. does this ring true? >> well, it rings true to me. since it's a survey, is this outside of the statistical bounds of their survey, which is plausible but irrelevant. but you have a president who says last budget got zero
the books in the bureau of labor statistics. jack welch tweeted, former cege, who kno -- ceo of ge, he says this is unbelievable. they're messing with the numbers. steve forbes, former gop presidential candidate, berkeley man himself, retweeted it and said, jack is right. and then there was this entire universe. i joked about it. you're out of your mind if you don't think these numbers were cooked. yesterday jack welch went on my colleague "chris matthews show" and this is what transpired. >> you put out the word here, unbelievable jobs numbers, fair enough. these chicago guys will do anything so they change the numbers. what evidence do you have that they got to the bos? the chicago guys got to the bureau of labor statistics and jimmied these numbers by .3%. >> i have no evidence, i just raised the question. >> you came out and asserted not a question mark or talked about a coincidence, you said these chicago guys will do anything so they change the numbers. do you want to take that back? jimmying with these numbers. there was corruption here, infiltration, getting to the -- it's not funny
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)